Sorry, I didn't included main() just because an empty one was enough.
I know it can be done with pointers to static functions, but I'd prefer
syntax with array of function literals for better readability in one
particular case I'm playing with now.
Anyway, thanks.
On 2010-10-31 03:13, bearophile wrote:

Also, I think D should not annoy us with the func/delegate distinction --
which is only for saving space -- and accept func defs that match the given
type signature. The annoying distinction is semantically irrelevant; the
signature is relevant.

A system language (that supports inline asm too, as D) must allow you to make
your choices on practical (implementation) basis too.

(*) By the way, why does D call closures "delegates"? I find this very
misleading, since delegation already has some meaning in the context of
programming. And well, "closure" is well established precisely in this sense.
Sometimes, PL designers amaze me ;-)

In D1 there were delegates (fat pointers) but not closures. So the name
distinction was correct. Later closures were added, but the name didn't change.
Bye,
bearophile